On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:06:03 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 17:15:10 UTC, Remo wrote:
So what is proper/best way to mimic default constructor for
struct ?
Honestly, you can't, and you shouldn't try either. There "used"
to be the static opCall that allowed:
----
auto a = T();
----
But:
a) This is being phased out: If T has a constructor, it will
seize to compile.
b) It's not "default": "T a;" will still compile, but not
construct.
The feedback I've been getting is that the "correct" way to
guarantee construction is to do it via a named factory pattern.
You disable the this(), so as to "force" initialization, and
make the constructors private. You'll get something along the
lines of:
T a; //Nope.
T a = T(); //Nope
T a = T.build(); //OK!
T a = T(1, 2); //Nope!
T a = T.build(1, 2); //OK!
T a = T.init; //OK! Special explicit requrest for
non-initialisation.
With D's move semantics and (N)RVO, there should be 0 overhead
to do this.
Thanks, I will try to make this this way and look how well it
will work. But it could complicate connection from C++ to D and
back.
Where I can find more info about 'D's move semantics'?
Apparently it is not the same as rvalue reference and move
semantics in C++11 ?
